Interesting observation and conclusion, I was rather happy with my 17/1.8 for several years, even shot it somewhat exclusively for some months, but picked up a second hand 15mm, and after 20 shots with that, the 17mm was out the door rather quick. Down the line, I compromised and bought a copy of the 17/2.8...Actually, all 3 of you are correct. The f/2.8 gets the most complaints. But the f/1.8 gets complaints when people compare it to the PL15. Personally, I prefer the P14 over the O17 f/2.8 as a tiny prime and the O17 f/1.8 over the PL15 for a reason I've never really been able to put my finger on. I even prefer the P14 over the PL15.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Micro 4/3 Your Treasured M43 'Sleeper Lens"?
- Location
- Boston Burbs
- Name
- David
I've owned 3 (4?) PL15's. You would think I'd like the Pl15 more since I tend to prefer 28mme over 35mme. But the PL15 is the best lens I've never really enjoyed.
- Name
- Miguel Tejada-Flores
I have to totally agree with you Jens about the tiny Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake. It truly fits the definition of an underrated lens, and at times was bashed by many for not being fast enough or, occasionally, for lacking other optical qualities. In my experience, using it on very small Pen bodies, the lens performed in a stellar fashion, and always gave me results that seemed impossibly better than they should be. I liked it so much I bought it twice - first with my ancient small Olympus workhorse, the E-PL2, and later to use on a pristine E-P1. In both cases, the lens simply delivered.
I appreciate your mention of the other lens, the Lumix 14-45mm. It's been on my radar for awhile as an all-purpose zoom, and back in the day, I remember reading a number of seriously detailed and relatively glowing user reports about this lens. I may have to just break down and go looking for one, instead of talking about it
Nothing wrong with that, David. I have pondered abit on my tastes in photography and think I will blame shooting much on fujichrome and -colour, both of them was rather heavy on the saturation, so to speak and I see a tendency for me to end up towards that when I do post.
That observation I think I can relate towards the PL15/Oly17f.1.8 debacle. Where the Oly or at least my copy tended towards being somewhat neutral and needing heavier stuff in post, than the more "glowing" sooc results I get with the PL.
As to the Oly 17mm razzing, if I recall correctly there were a well informed fellow over on that other forum, that spoke in some detail of the differences in quality between China and Vietnam? produced 17mm lenses and again going off memory, the chinese ones suffered from lack of proper QC, so some of the products where proper stunning ones with most of them being somewhat average and quite a lot rather under par. The Vietnamese ones where more consistently decent to good, with the outlayers at both ends of the spectrum was more or less taken out of the equation.
The 17 2.8 does get most of the complaints. Not from me, of course, since I have two of them. Supposedly the 17 1.8 isn't as sharp in the corners. People can be really fussy about lenses these days since there are modern designs which are highly corrected and deliver remarkable performance right across the frame. Of course, they also can be large heavy, and expensive.Actually, all 3 of you are correct. The f/2.8 gets the most complaints. But the f/1.8 gets complaints when people compare it to the PL15. Personally, I prefer the P14 over the O17 f/2.8 as a tiny prime and the O17 f/1.8 over the PL15 for a reason I've never really been able to put my finger on. I even prefer the P14 over the PL15.
- Location
- Boston Burbs
- Name
- David
Rings a bell, but I can't recall the details.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
There's always someone who will spruik this sort of thing, Jens.
It's just rubbish, IMNSHO.
I own both the f/4 8-25 Pro and f/4 12-100 Pro. Both are excellent lenses. I've used both to shoot our local Beaumaris Concourse Car Show (along with my FTs 14-54 MkII). All delivered excellent results.
Cars are a terrific, real life test bench for lenses. Lots of things in zone 2 and 3, and in the corners that need to be sharp and not distorted. All three deliver excellent results.
Now, the 8-25 is not as crackingly sharp as the 12-100. However, very few people would even notice.
What's interesting is that the 12-100 was made in China and the 8-25 in Vietnam.
So my practical conclusion is that those people are talking through their hats ...
The photographer's skills are far more important than minor technical differences between lenses, IMO.
BTW, these are by no means the only lenses where I have observed no practical differences stemming from country of manufacture.
IME, sample variation does occur, but most noticeably at the kit/cheap lens level, even though it's not unknown for it to occur with expensive lenses.
Not sure that is rubbish, as such. There are rather too many factors involved in any sort of assembly, if done by people, that I am willing to disregard it as humbug outright. I would rate the info as either a C3 or a C6.
I don't necessarily think that products produced in China are inferior to products produced in other places, but there seems to be less fuzz about the 17mm now, than what it used to be earlier on, as well as less "glowing" reports on samples of one.
As of the Pro lenses, I will at least speculate that they are built to rather higher standards, with more rigid tolerances and with better QC than a run of the mill cheapish prime.
Jon BEV
Regular
- Location
- Auckland New Zealand
Yes A tiny Zuiko 17 mm 2'8 pancake lens.'Sleeper Lens'?
I guess it could be called...'The Best Lens I Have Ever Owned But Nobody Else Is Smart Enough To Realize It!'
But to be a bit kinder, there are definitely good lenses that slip under the radar.
Panasonic certainly has a few in my opinion....the 35-100mm f/4-5.6 and the 45-175mm come to mind.
Olympus?....the 30mm f/3.5 .....a seemingly ridiculous f/3.5 max aperture but plenty sharp with very good magnification.
Which brings me to my latest acquisition....the 9-18mm M43 lens.
Small! [how can anything that small be any good???]
[Retracting Zoom Lock??...too inconvenient!] Plastic!!!....Oh NO!]
There certainly are lots of people who love this lens but it's not as sexy as, say, an Oly 75mm f/1.8
Anybody got some other 'sleepers'?
sasquatchphotog
Regular
- Location
- Derbyshire, UK
- Name
- Rich
I don't use it all that often, but I'm always impressed by the Oly 45mm 1.8. It's so small and light, yet the images out of it are always very pleasing (barring issues of missed focus or inopportune facial expressions)
- Location
- Gloucester, UK
- Name
- Mark
Seconded. The O45 f1.8 is sometimes commented upon but gets far less attention than some other lenses. Punches way above its price point.
I know someone who also had one but sold it. A while later he waxed lyrical over a few pictures I’d taken with mine then enquired as to what lens I’d used. The look on his face when I told him….. ‘bless.
Panolyman
All-Pro
- Location
- Wild West Wales
- Name
- Brian
I wonder if it’s the 75mm to blame for that. It’s the natural progression and once you’ve used one for a short time there doesn’t seem to be much want to go back to the 45, super lens though it is.
I am not sure if it is a "sleeper" - but it was certainly overlooked by me, the Voigtlander 25mm 0.95. It is not cheap, it is manual focus only. But, it might be my favorite native mount M4/3 lens that I ever owned - and I don't even like the 25mm FOV. Once I got it, I just fell in love.
I might try to get the 42.5mm 0.95 one of these days, it is much more of a FOV that I like and if it can replicate the magic of the 25mm...
I might try to get the 42.5mm 0.95 one of these days, it is much more of a FOV that I like and if it can replicate the magic of the 25mm...
Last edited:
- Location
- Tanagra
The 40-150R just shouldn't be as good as it is for the price, and for said price, there's little reason every M43 shooter shouldn't have one on hand. I like the Panasonic equivalent of the lens too, which coincidentally was the owner of the only lens accessory I've lost somewhere (hood).
sasquatchphotog
Regular
- Location
- Derbyshire, UK
- Name
- Rich
Could be, but then again though I haven't used the 75, I know it might be too tight for the kind of photography I use the 45 for - candid portraits in indoor settings (home, restaurants, parties), and a bit of band photography, as I tried this Tuesday when finding myself at a small rock "gig" in a pub in Sheffield - the band was Gustavo Johnson, very heavy with lots of weird sounds
(Lighting was very red, so I leaned into it with the Lomography Redscale 100 colour rendering in Filmpack 6)
All this to say I would probably like and get a lot of use out of a 75, but I reckon I'd keep and still use a 45 too
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Last edited:
- Location
- Gloucester, UK
- Name
- Mark
Us M43 users are somewhat spoiled for good portrait primes. We have the 45, 60 and, as you say, 75 lenses from which to choose. I considered the 75 but felt I couldn’t stand back far enough in the circumstances in which I usually shoot portraits. There’s also something about the feel of the images produced by the 45 that I like but can’t quite define.
Last edited:
Cederic
Regular
- Location
- Nottingham
A few references to the horribly slow to focus 20mm f/1.7. It's small, sure, but really I think there are so many better options - including the 14-42 PZ (which I haven't had the chance to compare to the 14-42 EZ, so will happily accept the judgement of those that have).
This is my favourite lens amongst all the m43 primes I own. Is it a sleeper though? I bought it because it was so well regarded!
My sleeper lens? The big ugly cheap one, which gets slated for its IQ, yet.. almost a quarter of the M43 photographs I've kept have been taken with the Panny 100-300. For its focal length it's small and it's light. Sure, it's slow but it's been to six continents and it get shots other lenses can't.
This is my favourite lens amongst all the m43 primes I own. Is it a sleeper though? I bought it because it was so well regarded!
My sleeper lens? The big ugly cheap one, which gets slated for its IQ, yet.. almost a quarter of the M43 photographs I've kept have been taken with the Panny 100-300. For its focal length it's small and it's light. Sure, it's slow but it's been to six continents and it get shots other lenses can't.
